It must be on the actual view of the body, the coroner and his party seeing it together. 2 _Hale_ 60. 1 _East._ 380. _King v. Ferrand._ 2 _Barn. & Ald._ 260. It was evidently the original intention of the Legislature, that the coroner should view the body on the spot where it was found; that he and his jury might judge as well by inspection of the body, as by an examination of surrounding objects, whether the deceased had died by violence. And Sir _William Blackstone_ says, “He must also sit at the _very_ place where the death happened,” 1 _Com._ 348. and this should certainly be done in all possible cases, for the state of surrounding objects most frequently will testify more strongly than any other evidence. Modern fastidiousness has introduced the custom of removing the body to some public-house, even where the death had happened in an ordinary dwelling; this if not illegal, is at least improper. Footnote 82: See also the proceedings on the Oldham inquest, and the subsequent judgment in the Court of King’s Bench. _A.D._ 1818, 1819. The _King against Ferrand_, 2 _Barn & Ald._ 260. Footnote 83: This was publicly disputed on a late occasion; it is well to question all extra-judicial dicta, which may be delivered during the heat of political controversy. Footnote 84: The evidence must be on oath; _vide ante_ _p._ 167. Footnote 85: In _Scorey’s_ case, _Leach C. L._ 50. the coroner refused to take the evidence of a man who had accompanied the accused in search of deer-stealers, and only admitted the man who was with the deceased. The coroner, on the testimony of this man, told the jury, that the crime was murder, but they refused to find any other verdict than _Accidental death_; which verdict the coroner recorded, and then by his warrant sent _Scorey_ to the county goal for murder. _Scorey_ being now brought up by Habeas Corpus—The Court, on full affidavit of the fact, admitted him to bail, and granted a rule against the coroner to shew cause why an information should not be filed against him. Footnote 86: